• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Same sex marraige resumes in California

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Rob would you rather focus on the word creator or deal with the actual paragraph that states all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Lets stop with the intellectual dishonesty already. I want to know your honest opinion. Can you disagree with this statement in order to support your bigotry?
 
randomrogue said:
Rob would you rather focus on the word creator or deal with the actual paragraph that states all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Lets stop with the intellectual dishonesty already. I want to know your honest opinion. Can you disagree with this statement in order to support your bigotry?
Click to expand...

Look back, I believe it totally.

All humans are created equal. No doubt about that.
 
randomrogue said:
You still think it's ok to discriminate though?
Click to expand...


Yes, it is... honestly. Hear me out: I believe in the God of the Bible, and if (for example) its mentioned that we are not to have sex with persons of the same sex, I think he has every right to make the rule on the matter as the Creator.

From our POV, that's wrong, bigoted, murderous... whatever adjective you want to use ...of course. But if God can create all this and do things unimaginable (like miracles, etc) and create this awesome universe, then I won't argue with something he says, for example, because obviously, I haven't gone wrong up to this point in my life anyway for listening to Him by means of reading the Bible, and it's made my life markedly better than before studying it.

So, discrimination, in this context, isn't wrong -- but everyone won't agree with that for their own reasons.

So its not me that being discriminatory, I'm simply obeying who I believe exists and is the rule maker for people who want to listen. This isn't a "Christian" nation, so those who are secular don't have to read the Bible and believe in God, etc, or go to Church.
 
jackstar7 said:
So you're fine with the law treating everyone equally, you simply will not personally. Am I getting that right?
Click to expand...

Why say "everyone"? Unless you mean gays are everyone.

This is important, treating everyone as humans beings, and not legislating laws to ban gay marriage is my stance. I have no interest in banning gay marriage.

This is why religious people should stay out of lawmaking -- their beliefs are not compatible with our current society, my beliefs are not, obviously.
 
Rob M. said:
Why say "everyone"? Unless you mean gays are everyone.

This is important, treating everyone as humans beings, and not legislating laws to ban gay marriage is my stance. I have no interest in banning gay marriage.

This is why religious people should stay out of lawmaking -- their beliefs are not compatible with our current society, my beliefs are not, obviously.
Click to expand...

I'll stick with everyone, because it does a good job of being inclusive.
 
randomrogue said:
Why does the level of inequality become such a sticking point for you? It's not the point. The inequality is the entire point of this discussion and this controversy.
Click to expand...

Just for you random, I forgot about this exchange between Charles and Craig with his comparison of gay marriage opposition to that of the Germans toward the Jews in Nazi Germany, and now he's focused his attention to blacks:

Link
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35062087&postcount=69

Just saying, he has a history of making bad, offensive, and over-zealous analogies, making any atrocity comparable to the opposition to gay marriage.
 
I'm not going to jump back in that thread to figure out the full context of that dialogue but regardless you keep trying to justify bigotry.

I've seen you say things like "I like gay people and support the law BUT I still think they shouldn't get married because it's morally wrong". This to me is like saying "I have a black friend therefore I can't be a racist". Has anyone ever believed someone when they said this and does any of that justify being a racist? Does the morality that your bible teaches you justify hate? I was on the train the other day and these drunk girls were screaming racist things at all the minorities on the train. When they got called on it they screamed that they had black boyfriends. Who has a black boyfriend but screams "******" on the train? It's a bullshit excuse.

I've tried to bring up really basic logic with you and you like to dodge and evade the hard truth and the whole point of the discussion in any way you can.

Here's what it boils down to though:

Do you believe that homosexuals should be denied the same rights as heterosexuals due to their sexual orientation?

If your answer is yes you are, by definition, a bigot. It's that simple. You can't use the bible to justify it.
 
randomrogue said:
I'm not going to jump back in that thread to figure out the full context of that dialogue but regardless you keep trying to justify bigotry.

I've seen you say things like "I like gay people and support the law BUT I still think they shouldn't get married because it's morally wrong". This to me is like saying "I have a black friend therefore I can't be a racist". Has anyone ever believed someone when they said this and does any of that justify being a racist? Does the morality that your bible teaches you justify hate? I was on the train the other day and these drunk girls were screaming racist things at all the minorities on the train. When they got called on it they screamed that they had black boyfriends. Who has a black boyfriend but screams "******" on the train? It's a bullshit excuse.

I've tried to bring up really basic logic with you and you like to dodge and evade the hard truth and the whole point of the discussion in any way you can.

Here's what it boils down to though:

Do you believe that homosexuals should be denied the same rights as heterosexuals due to their sexual orientation?

If your answer is yes you are, by definition, a bigot. It's that simple. You can't use the bible to justify it.
Click to expand...

Your questioned is biased for at least 2 reasons:

(1) You presuppose a right to marrying someone of the same gender. An idea based on denying 100s of years of history. See for example the article "Marriage, Procreation and Historical Amnesia", http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ation-and-historical-amnesia/?ref=rossdouthat

(2) You presuppose that only homosexuals would marry people of the same sex. Given that same-sex marriage activists routinely advance the argument that "marriage is just a contract to get government benefits" there is no reason to believe this. If you are saying that people can only marry people based on their sexual orientation you are directly contradicting the argument that "marriage is just a contract to get government benefits"
 
You posted a blog. Just because we had slaves for thousands of years doesn't make it right.

I'm not sure what you're saying in the second point. You are making no sense.
 
I wonder how many pages nehalem will keep arguing in a failed attempt to avoid being wrong?

I'm genuinely not sure there's a limit.
 
randomrogue said:
You posted a blog. Just because we had slaves for thousands of years doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

From a guy who I assume is paid by the NYTs. Its not exactly blogspot.com/insane_fossil_conservative

randomrogue said:
I'm not sure what you're saying in the second point. You are making no sense.
Click to expand...

"due to their sexual orientation"

I was addressing that. Given the idea of what marriage is presented by same-sex marriage advocates there is no reason to suppose that same-sex marriage has anything to do with sexual orientation. And in fact claiming it does really invalidates their basic definition of what marriage is.
 
Nehalem you have nothing of worth to contribute to this conversation apparently. I'll check back in a month and see if you've made any progress. I'm going on vacation in a couple days and will be back at the end of August.
 
randomrogue said:
Just because we had slaves for thousands of years doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

There is not really a connection between slavery and not recognizing someone's relationship.

In fact any possible connection would seem to be reversed of what you are implying. As in both cases you are defining a "right" that is making a demand of someone else.

A slave owner thinks he has a "right" to another person's labor.

SSM activists think they have a "right" to other people recognizing their relationship because they said so.
 
nehalem256 said:
There is not really a connection between slavery and not recognizing someone's relationship.

In fact any possible connection would seem to be reversed of what you are implying. As in both cases you are defining a "right" that is making a demand of someone else.

A slave owner thinks he has a "right" to another person's labor.

SSM activists think they have a "right" to other people recognizing their relationship because they said so.
Click to expand...

SSM activists think they have a "right" to be entitled to every other "right" every heterosexual American is entitled to. And, they are right in thinking that.

But, I am sure you will continue with your nonsensical arguments against equality. So please do continue.
 
nehalem256 said:
There is not really a connection between slavery and not recognizing someone's relationship.

In fact any possible connection would seem to be reversed of what you are implying. As in both cases you are defining a "right" that is making a demand of someone else.

A slave owner thinks he has a "right" to another person's labor.

SSM activists think they have a "right" to other people recognizing their relationship because they said so.
Click to expand...

What demand is being placed on you?
 
smackababy said:
SSM activists think they have a "right" to be entitled to every other "right" every heterosexual American is entitled to. And, they are right in thinking that.

But, I am sure you will continue with your nonsensical arguments against equality. So please do continue.
Click to expand...

The have the same right as any other American to marry a person of the opposite sex.

I am not sure why you are bringing sexual orientation into this. Marriage is just a contract to get benefits from the government. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

DixyCrat said:
What demand is being placed on you?
Click to expand...

Marriage is about society/government/(other people) recognizes your relationship. They are demanding that their relationship be recognized.
 
nehalem256 said:
The have the same right as any other American to marry a person of the opposite sex.

I am not sure why you are bringing sexual orientation into this. Marriage is just a contract to get benefits from the government. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
And, based on sexual orientation, certain American's do not have the right to marry the partner of their choosing. Your thinking is completely flawed.

You might as well say we have freedom of religion, so long as we choose the religion the government has decided is the right one, or we can have nothing.

Marriage is about society/government/(other people) recognizes your relationship. They are demanding that their relationship be recognized.
Click to expand...
No, they are demanding they stop being excluded from rights based on sexual orientation. Nobody is forcing you to attend, endorse, thinking about, or be a participant in SSM. So, you can continue your flawed way of thinking as much as you'd like. The rest of the world, however, will not stand by and let you and your ilk trample the rights because you selectively believe certain parts of history the right ones and conveniently ignore the parts that aren't.
 
DC:What are they making you do
N^8: They are demanding that their relationship be recognized.

I'm fairly sure that there are folks that don't 'believe' in miscegenation that 'suffer' the same kind of 'repression'.

Or are you anti 'forcing recognition' of inter-racial marriage too?

If not, then please tell me how they are different; if yes then please just say the following line for my signature:

"I am against homosexual marriage for the same reasons I'm against inter racial marriage"
 
nehalem256 said:
There is not really a connection between slavery and not recognizing someone's relationship.

In fact any possible connection would seem to be reversed of what you are implying. As in both cases you are defining a "right" that is making a demand of someone else.

A slave owner thinks he has a "right" to another person's labor.

SSM activists think they have a "right" to other people recognizing their relationship because they said so.
Click to expand...

Yet those that oppose SSM can not point to a justification of denying such other that it does not feel right.

It does no harm to anyone unless some one feels that they should have the right to join in as the opposite sex and do not want to be sued fir doing such.


If it can be shown where it does harm, then it is debatable.

Up until now, it is all words and no facts
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top